It's like a Western movie up here. Can you really just swagger around the sidewalks of Madison and Milwaukee with a gun in a holster? In your hand?

Milwaukee Police Chief Ed Flynn said he'll continue to tell officers they can't assume people are carrying guns legally in a city that has seen nearly 200 homicides in the past two years.

"My message to my troops is if you see anybody carrying a gun on the streets of Milwaukee, we'll put them on the ground, take the gun away and then decide whether you have a right to carry it," Flynn said. "Maybe I'll end up with a protest of cowboys. In the meantime, I've got serious offenders with access to handguns. It's irresponsible to send a message to them that if they just carry it openly no one can bother them."

So if you see Police Chief Ed Flynn, put him on the ground, take his wallet away, and then decide whether he’s accepted any bribes that day. If, after doing that, you think the money’s his, give his wallet back. Who cares what the law says? It’s the Milwaukee Way!

I definitely think the Milwaukee PD is in the wrong here, and actually argued this very subject with Deputy DA Bob Donohoo back when he was still around. He agreed with that it was clearly legal to carry openly even in the city, but that the office had a standing policy of automatically charging such as disorderly conduct. I argued this was illegitimate as state law effectively pre-empted such blanket application, and that furthermore it was an unsupportable violation of the state's RTKBA, which is actually stronger than the federal one. Needless to say, he was willing to chance it so long as the courts didn't tell him he couldn't.

Actually I preferred concealed carry laws rather than an open display. Concealed carry laws allow you to enjoy the look of terror on the face of some scumbag mugger when that expected wallet turns out to be a Glock.

There was an interesting discussion on the AG's interpretation yesterday on WPR, and it centered on how people react to the open display -- sort of like the I know pornography when I see it thing. Does the open display cause a disturbance? If so, you can be charged with causing the disturbance, but not necessarily with carrying the gun.

The reaction by the Chief in Milwaukee is certainly colored by the crime statistics there. I'll wager his "troops'" reactions would differ whether they were on West Silver Spring vs. Oakland.

And yes, why on Earth didn't the reporter make the Goldfinger connection? Are J/S reporters that culturally ignorant?

The analogy I like to trot out here is that is that if someone having a gun makes them suspicious, then why not stop and frisk all black people? FBI statistics show that most violent crimes are committed by black people, so therefore you would have a higher chance of capturing a criminal.

"But my message to my troops is if you see a colored man walking on a public street in the white part of town, we'll put them on the ground, arrest them, and then decide whether you have a right to be there. Maybe I'll end up with a protest of coloreds. In the meantime, I've got serious offenders walking down the street for no good reason. It's irresponsible to send a message to them that if they just walk openly no one can bother them."

A gun in a holster, perfectly legal in lots of places. Of course, Madison isn't lots of places, but if the state AG says it's legal, he's a lot more likely to be right than a Police Chief suggesting that citizens be assaulted and their property confiscated because he's worried about criminals that never carry openly anyway.

How do the Police in Milwaukee find these guns on "serious offenders" now? Not because they see them carrying in holsters, I suspect.

Thus one assumes that the same tactics should work (or fail) equally well without illicitly trying to criminalize a legal activity.

There is no "message" being sent here... beyond the one that Officer Flynn's people are already evidently sending, that they're ineffective at working against violent crime anyway. (And beyond the message that even Wisconsin residents have rights under the law, despite the Police Chief not liking them!)

Is there only one intelligent person in Madison, WI? I'd like to think that the police are savvy enough to know that it's not the openly-displayed gun that they should fear, but the illegally concealed one.

How is a policeman to know the difference? Are you a legal dude or just a dude on the way to a crime?

There's this principle that is intentionally inconvenient for the police. It's called "innocent until proven guilty" and you can also toss in "probable cause." If carrying a weapon openly is legal, then it is not probable cause absent some other suspicious behavior.

Matt Yglesias would cry like the little girl he is if he so much as saw a gun in person.

Notice how people infected with political minds, this time on the left, work: arguing for your Constitutionally guaranteed right to bear arms for self-protection makes you a stupid cowboy, a militia member, a gun nut. Arguing against the State's confiscation of your money makes you a "teabagger" (titter, titter! they don't even know that that's a sex slang term!), un-American, possibly a racist.

In other words, you're too cool for school only if you're a tool for the government, fool!

"How is a policeman to know the difference? Are you a legal dude or just a dude on the way to a crime?"

As pointed out by others, a much better argument could be made for throwing all Black males to the ground and searching them for this reason, than people who carry openly. There is absolutely no evidence that people who carry openly are more likely to be on the way to a crime than anyone else, and on the other hand, it is highly likely that they are LESS likely to be doing so.

Of course, if the crime that they are on the way to committing is the disorderly conduct of openly carrying a gun, then the police chief has a point - but not a colorable one.

"There's this principle that is intentionally inconvenient for the police. It's called "innocent until proven guilty" and you can also toss in "probable cause." If carrying a weapon openly is legal, then it is not probable cause absent some other suspicious behavior."

I think it goes beyond that, to the point that those who openly carry are likely less likely, not more likely to be on the way to committing a crime.

To bad the ACLU has retreated from protecting our Constitutional rights, and instead become a shill for the Democratic party. Realistically, they should be all over this. But, of course, they won't be. Now, if a policy of targeting young Black males in a similar way was in force, I have no doubt that they would be in the forefront of the protest and litigation.

I will confess that openly carry to me connotes carrying in your hand, which seems monumentally stupid. Just carrying a gun around in a holster? Not so bad.

Still, the thought of people like Auric Gold at a picnic with like-minded all carrying guns in holsters (to what end?) makes me snicker. Admittedly, this is probably a prejudgement against people who would willingly name themselves Auric Gold. Or should I pity him because his parents named him that?

"And as easily predicted, the gun lobby has ridden to the blog in full force. So many yucks!

So the police guy says "to the ground and ask questions later" and the gun guys want to sue if they do (among other things)."

Interesting logic. Someone is not doing anything illegal and is forced to the ground and relieved of property until they can prove they are not breaking the law. It would seem that hdhouse's argument is that the activity shouldn't be legal, not that the illegal act of the police shouldn't be actionable despite there being zero reason to think an illegal activity is occurring. I would think that if there was a situation that was the same in every detail with the exception of a gun involved, you would be protesting in the streets.

A gun in the hand is usually "brandishing," a separate criminal offense. "Open carry" just means carried in a holster, unconcealed. It's the opposite of "concealed carry," which, for those who may not know, is illegal in Wisconsin.

And perhaps Auric Gold is a pseudonym? It certainly wouldn't be the first time someone gave a reporter a ridiculous fake name.

Someone is not doing anything illegal and is forced to the ground and relieved of property until they can prove they are not breaking the law. It sounds like the police don't like the actual law, so they've decided to enforce something they've made up in their heads.

In Arkansas, we can carry concealed if you have a license. The funny thing is that you can't carry in church, and there is a group of people who keep trying to get that law changed.

The big winners is this might be pizza delivery guys. Those poor bastards are sent to some hairy places, and are regularly robbed and sometimes killed. Right now, if they carry concealed, that's a crime, and if they carry openly, the MPD will take their property and declare them disorderly. They deserve the right to protect themselves without threat of prosecution.

This is the one and only issue where I regularly side with conservatives.

I live in a small town in the west, virtually every home has a gun, a lot of people wear them around town (by state law you need a concealed carry permit but lots of peole have one) and there has not been a rape or a murder within memory here.

This SWAT team mentality arises from a Police Department shootout fantasy coupled with a deep seated belief by the Police Dept Higher Ups that a citizen carrying a weapon on a holster belt is a type of Impersonating an Officer. That is the worst offense known to Police Departments since it both threatens their reputations as the only all powerful good guys and it raises a real job security issue.

"How is this not an "activist attorney general?" He doesn't seem to understand the role of the legislature in that big domey building across the street."

This decision by the AG partially results from a guy in West Allis who was standing in his yard with a gun minding his own business and was arrested by the West Allis PD. He got the case thrown out because he argued that if he cannot even hold a firearm on his property then his state constitutional right to bear arms was infringed.

It is the AG's job to put out guidance to law enforcement and that is what JBVH has done. If law enforcement choses to ignore that guidance, the taxpayers who pay their salaries can also pay the resulting legal bills when people sue the police for harassment, etc.

What the Police Chief is saying is that the good citizens of Madison are all worthless criminals since they want tools to defend themselves.Who knows,he may be right about you, since he has lived in Madison with you.

Bart Hall: Here in Florida, there's a 'must-issue' policy on CC, after a required safety course. It is illegal, however, to openly carry. I understand that this is the case in many other states that permit CC.

There are also limitations on where you are permitted to carry--not in courthouses or sports stadiums, for example--but those are mostly reasonable.

The pizza guy has more to worry about than the local PD if he's carrying a gun, concealed or open. Most pizza franchises forbid their employees, on pain of termination, to carry weapons of any sort while on the job.

Ann asked: Can you really just swagger around the sidewalks of Madison and Milwaukee with a gun in a holster? In your hand?In a holster? Yes. Swaggering around with the gun in your hand? No. The way the story was reported on Wisconsin Public Radio news this morning suggested that "brandishing" the weapon, or using it in a manner intended to cause others around you to feel intimidated or threatened, would still be considered criminal.

One local law enforcement spokesman (Steve Pettit, the police chief of Oregon, a village a few miles south of Madison) put it, police in Wisconsin already know that open carry is legal in the state, and disorderly conduct, as with most other violations, is a case-by-case judgment call police officers are required to make.

In other words, merely carrying a hunting rifle during deer season, or even a holstered pistol on one's hip in plain view is not, per se, "disorderly conduct." You have to be, you know, disorderly, for it to be sensible to level that charge against someone.

jeff said... "I would think that if there was a situation that was the same in every detail with the exception of a gun involved, you would be protesting in the streets."

Ahhh but Jeff there IS a gun involved and that's the rub isn't it. Unless you are wearing a gun on a belt to hold up your pants, or you think that this is the new spring fashion rage, the only use for a gun is to discharge a bullet. Now take the policeman's point of view. How is he to know what you have on your mind?

Which brings me to my original post...if we torture anyone who we remotely think fits the bill of a terrorist why can't a policeman wrestle someone to the ground in the interest of "preventive safety" until he finds out if it is a good or possible bad guy?

How does that double standard work?

I told you guys you lay yourself open to the hypocracy charge for taking this position and sure you do!

How is a policeman to know the difference? Are you a legal dude or just a dude on the way to a crime?

If the policeman can't tell, he has to assume you are "a legal dude". That's the way our system is supposed to work. He certainly can't preemptively "put you on the ground" just on the off chance you're a criminal. That's called "assault and battery", and it is illegal even if it is being done by a guy with a badge.

If a policeman thinks following that rule makes his job too hard, tough. He can quit and go work at Starbucks.

Also, I think we should lay a moratorium on the use of the word "hypocrisy" to describe inconsistent arguments and reserve it for its actual meaning, a person who preaches one thing and does another. Not just someone who says two different things.

First of all that is incorrect. The *potential* to discharge a bullet is, in itself, a separate use for a gun. The most common defensive use of a handgun doesn't involved firing at all, but simply presenting it. Faced with the mere possibility of being shot, most would-be burglars, rapists, et al will surrender or flee without you needing to actually shoot them.

Secondly, even if it WERE true that guns were only good for firing bullets, what of it? Firing bullets is not illegal. The overwhelming majority of bullets fired in this country are fired for entirely legal purposes, ranging from hunting to target practice to defensive usage.

What other word is as accurate?Is this not the police state the left has so often warned about?

In my small MN town, the County Attorney told a group of 400 attending a neighborhood meeting regarding a recent spate of drug-related shootings that we would be arrested and charged with a crime if we used a gun to defend ourselves against an intruder, even if he had a weapon.

Bruce wrote: "I think it goes beyond that, to the point that those who openly carry are likely less likely, not more likely to be on the way to committing a crime."

I don't know Bruce, the criminals around here in the South wear jackets that say MURDERER or PIMP or GANG BANGER and the drug dealers ride around in trucks that play Cheech and Chong bits while advertising crank, weed, and crack.

Oh, and all the bad guys wear black hats while carrying their piece on their side where everyone can see it.

Police Chiefs, though appointed, are politicians. The spout the words of those who appoint them; usually the mayor and/or city council. They are not independently minded.

Also, during the Clinton Administration, there was federal money and private donations to police departments who took an anti gun stance. They took the money, they walked the walk and are still talking the talk.

Revenant said... "Sure, you CAN use a gun for crime, but the same is true of a car."

It can be said of a plane, a boat or a bike too. May I remind you that in 2001 nearly 5 times the number of Americans who were lost on 9/11 died of homicide so in your pristine world of facts and hopeful figures wouldn't this country have been better served by a war on guns rather than terrorists?

Of course not so don't get all snitty here but people with guns are a much larger threat to me than a terrorist is and those are just the facts.

As to the yokel who thought hypocracy cuts both ways,...well duhhhh....except I don't like torture and disapprove of it and I don't like people walking around with guns so I'm not hypocritical...the guys who are hypocrites here are the ones who don't want pre-emptive action from a poor cop on the beat and then want preemptive torture applied at whim.

"...In my small MN town, the County Attorney told a group of 400 attending a neighborhood meeting regarding a recent spate of drug-related shootings that we would be arrested and charged with a crime if we used a gun to defend ourselves against an intruder, even if he had a weapon."

We had some City and County Attorneys talking, and acting, like that in Colorado. In many cases it lost them their jobs, and it was the reason we got the "make my day" law. I'm not sure your CA's behavior rises to the level of official oppression, but it would be fun to try to make the case.

If enough people carry openly it will become less scary just because it's less unusual.

One of these days I'm going to get a concealed carry license and a gun, but the "concealed" part always seemed to me as if it presented a problem. A purse, even one designed with a holster inside, seems insecure. It's not attached to you. It can be set down or stolen. I'm not comfortable with not having positive control over something I'm responsible for the security of. And the other option to a purse is a jacket to conceal the weapon. I don't normally wear jackets or anything like that and in the summer what other reason is there to wear one? Plus, this is the desert for goodness sake.

If it were acceptable, I'd far rather wear a visible holster. If everyone who now conceal carries did, it wouldn't be that strange to see.

"May I remind you that in 2001 nearly 5 times the number of Americans who were lost on 9/11 died of homicide so in your pristine world of facts and hopeful figures wouldn't this country have been better served by a war on guns rather than terrorists?"

No. Better a war on criminals. Registered gun owners typically fall neither in the category of criminal or violent people. Look up the facts on it.

"so the chief is a rightwing guy who believes in an authoritarian state?"

May I remind you that in 2001 nearly 5 times the number of Americans who were lost on 9/11 died of homicide so in your pristine world of facts and hopeful figures wouldn't this country have been better served by a war on guns rather than terrorists?

Wouldn't the analog of "terrorists" be "criminals?" "Guns," in your analogy, would be an analog of "jetliners." I think the whole idea of declaring war on inanimate objects is silly and futile. Do you support the war on drugs too?

Of course not so don't get all snitty here but people with guns are a much larger threat to me than a terrorist is and those are just the facts.

You can't just throw that out there as a "fact" without justifying it. This "fact" seems to be based on an assumption that (a) there would be no homicides without guns, and (b) the only way you can be affected by terrorism is to be killed by it. Furthermore, we've already established that threat magnitude is not the sole factor, otherwise you'd be calling for car bans as well.

But this is all tangential to this topic! Regardless of what you think the law should be the law is what it is and that should be how it is enforced. If you don't like it, change the law.

May I remind you that in 2001 nearly 5 times the number of Americans who were lost on 9/11 died of homicide so in your pristine world of facts and hopeful figures wouldn't this country have been better served by a war on guns rather than terrorists?

Four times as many people died from cars as from homicides. So were we to follow your logic, we should wage a war on cars first, THEN switch to guns once the cars have been eradicated, and then finally finish off by dealing with those pesky Al Qaeda folks. Of course, a more sensible line of reasoning would recognize that both cars and an armed citizenry provide substantial benefits to American society, while Muslim terrorism provides no known benefit to American society at all. A war to eradicate an entirely bad thing obviously makes more sense than a war to eradicate something which is not clearly harmful.

Plus, of course, there's the little fact that we have a Constitutional right to guns. There is a procedure for amending the Constitution to remove rights in it, and declaring a war on them isn't it. :)

Of course not so don't get all snitty here but people with guns are a much larger threat to me than a terrorist is and those are just the facts.

Black men are a bigger threat to you than white men -- that, too, is "just the facts". Should the police be sure to "put down" any black guys that get near you, just to be sure you're safe? Or could it possibly be true that your desire to feel safe doesn't trump other people's natural rights?

Black men are a bigger threat to you than white men -- that, too, is "just the facts".Now don't go out and do something stupid like buy a Corvette to compensate ;)

On a serious note, there are hundreds of variables that render that statement irrelevant. Like, where I grew up there weren't any black people. They could hardly be more of a threat to me than white people, could they?

I definitely noticed this when homeschooling. In the beginning there were two radical groups who homeschooled. There were fundy Christians and tofu and nuts hippies, and they were far enough on the fringes in either direction that they'd gone all the way around and met on the other side. What each group had in common was incredible... belief in personal sovereignty apart from the State, belief in freedom that did not see anything to fear in those parents who were raising their children with entirely disparate values... or what seemed to be disparate values. The unity there was opposition to coercion and recognition that a majority did not give the right to coerce to whoever got on the school board or won an election.

There is a danger, I think, when people do not recognize that Statist beliefs or fascist tendencies have nothing to do with conservative or progressive... the difference there is simply which things either group might feel ought to be compelled by the State.

Skyler [1:42] -- if you're aware of tactical self-defence it's not evident from your post. Surprise is a very significant tactical advantage, and open-carry more or less throws it away.

Letting the bad guy know you're packing allows him plenty of time to assess you as a threat, probably before you're aware of his intentions, enabling him both to plan and manoeuvre to maximize his own tactical advantage

Now take the policeman's point of view. How is he to know what you have on your mind?

When did they become the Thought Police? How do they know what anyone has on their mind?

Their job is to catch criminals and stop crimes in process. Running around brandishing the gun would constitute probable cause to arrest the person. Merely walking around legally posessing a gun is not a crime.

So if I'm driving in my car and day dreaming about wanting to run over my ex husband and squish him like a bug, the police should stop me and impound my car because I might be thinking bad thoughts.

What is on my mind is nobody's business unless I act upon what is on my mind and those actions are illegal.

@hdhouse at 4:02. You've split the Gordian knot yourself at 1:25. If a terrorist is seen on the battle field brandishing or openly carrying a weapon, the troops should knock him to the ground and carry him off to Abu Ghraib, where they should make him stand naked in front of a female guard. That'll teach him to carry concealed under his burqa. This is a conundrum for no one but yourself.

May I remind you that in 2001 nearly 5 times the number of Americans who were lost on 9/11 died of homicide so in your pristine world of facts and hopeful figures wouldn't this country have been better served by a war on guns rather than terrorists?Well, no, technically; you may point it out, since you would not in fact be reminding me.

I, however, will in turn inform you that more men and boys committed firearm suicides in 2001 than men, women, and children comitted firearm homicides of men, women, and children.

So, actually, in this real world of facts and sensible priorities, wouldn't this country have been better served by you engaging in, supporting, or at the very least encouraging outreach towards men and boys at greater risk of suicide. . .instead of trying to play stupid gotcha games here?

Like, where I grew up there weren't any black people. They could hardly be more of a threat to me than white people, could they?

I pointed out that the mere fact that black men are more likely to harm you than white men doesn't justify stripping them of rights. Is "well that's not a problem for me because my neighborhood is lily-white" really the response you want to give, there?

Marine Corp doctrine (maybe unofficial) states that if you are going to a gunfight,

1) Bring a gun, preferrably a long gun.2) Bring all your friends with guns.

The single person scenario is very popular with the gun control people. It reinforces the view that you are alone in the world, no one is going to help you, and only the state can protect you.

So, let's take a group of twenty people where only two have guns. Who is the easy target? Answer: No one. Some crazy is going to attack an unarmed folk in that group when there are two armed defenders there? Not likely. Some crazy is going to attack an armed individual when there is a backup armed individual nearby? Not likely.

"Of course not so don't get all snitty here but people with guns are a much larger threat to me than a terrorist is and those are just the facts."I think someone used the word "people" when the correct word is "criminals."

I mean, to be accurate, police are people, too. Then again, given the context of this post....

Yeah, what Skyler said, and give the tenor of hdhouse's other comments in here, no doubt he only applies the presumption of innocence rule to criminals already known to the police who are engaging in suspicious of not openly criminal conduct, as opposed to otherwise law abiding citizens.

The cops have almost unanimously opposed concealed carry laws, open carry laws and any other affirmation of the right of law abiding citizens to carry weapons outside the home. Police consider anyone carrying a weapon to be a criminal. The attitude of the Milwaukee PD chief is consistent with that attitude. I'm not saying that attitude isn't understandable; I wouldn't want to have to conduct a "routine" traffic stop on a lonely road in west Texas a night, either, but these guys are sworn to uphold the law. Some law abiding gun owner who gets grounded by the Madson PD needs to clean out the Madison city coffers with a good old fashioned section 1983 lawsuit.

The single person scenario is very popular with the gun control people. It reinforces the view that you are alone in the world, no one is going to help you, and only the state can protect you.You think I'm advocating gun control? No. I'm advocating widespread concealed carry, preferably starting with 4 ...

Your comment that "only the state can protect you" does not follow at all from the previous two clauses. To the extent we are alone in the world the problem is that when seconds count the "authorities" are usually (at best) many minutes away.

"so the chief is a rightwing guy who believes in an authoritarian state?"

Actually, I would suggest that he is a leftwing authoritarian. Remember, the Fascists were socialists. It is only the revisionism of modern liberalism trying to recast them as right wing and to separate themselves from the excesses of the Communists, Nazis, and Fascists.

my brother-in-law is a Milwaukee Police Officer who carries while off-duty. One day he was shopping with my niece when other officers stopped and DREW DOWN on him, a fellow police officer, because someone called it in.

Letting the bad guy know you're packing allows him plenty of time to assess you as a threat, probably before you're aware of his intentions, enabling him both to plan and manoeuvre to maximize his own tactical advantageThis notion bothers me a whole lot.

As a member of the "victim class" of small female persons, I've been told that one of the most important things is to avoid acting like prey. Yes, avoid being alone in dark parking lots, stay in groups, get escorts, etc. but also to walk with a confident demeanor, move with purpose. There is a whole lot of defensive behavior that women generally take for granted and men don't seem to consider... because they don't have to. I've talked with my oldest daughter about this quite a bit, about how there may not be many predators out there, but that they are actually *predators.* They chose their targets rationally and the best defense is to be obviously *not* prey.

Bart's statement seems to imply that criminals, that predators, choose their prey without concern for vulnerability and all that appearing *less* vulnerable will do is encourage different, more decisive, tactics. The preferred plan, then, would be to appear vulnerable and when attacked shoot the attacker dead?

I would need to see some pretty clear evidence that criminals would be equally likely to attack an obviously armed person as an apparently unarmed one before I believed it was true.

Also, it seems likely that if a criminal *believes* other people are armed or likely to be armed, they'd be less likely to attack an obviously unarmed person.

Consider... there was a crazy ex-boyfriend who attacked his ex-girlfriend with a knife at the Wal-Mart here, where she worked, a few years ago. He was shot and killed by a customer who was carrying.

Now, crazy is crazy, but how likely would he have been to start stabbing his ex-girlfriend in a public place in front of other people, if he knew for certain that some of them were armed?

I do sympathize with police, though. Not anywhere near enough to change my opinion! But arriving after the fact when something has happened or is happening, being able to assume that anyone with a gun is a bad guy makes life simpler.

Bart's statement seems to imply that criminals, that predators, choose their prey without concern for vulnerability and all that appearing *less* vulnerable will do is encourage different, more decisive, tactics.

It is Hollywood thinking. Some people subconsciously view themselves as the star of their own little movie. Nobody's going to rob them just because they happen to be unarmed in a dark alley at night -- if they're robbed, it is going to be because the villain of the picture specifically targeted them with his nefarious plan. So you don't want to give too much away, because the villain will plan around it.

Meanwhile, back in Reality, criminals are almost without exception, stupid, lazy, and opportunistic. Bart's right that "letting the bad guy know you're packing allows him plenty of time to assess you as a threat". He's just ignoring the obvious reality that the resulting assessment will be "that man is carrying a gun. I will go rob someone else instead".

If you're wearing $2,500,000 in jewelry or carrying the secret master plans to the Phlogiston Ray on your person then it might make sense to keep criminals in the dark about how dangerous you are. But for normal people, advertising your status as a gun carrier is much, much safer.

My son is in a very small town where the tiny police force discovered a fondness for beating those they arrested. There was a town meeting attended by most residents, some 400 people, all open-carrying, where the police were told, "If you continue to beat us without cause when you arrest us, we are going to shoot you." And that was that - the police re-discovered good procedure and the townsfolk went back to their ordinary disorderly ways.

I admit this story has a pat symmetry that makes it seem distrustable. On the other hand, he was there, and there are some similar tales sprinkled here and there in American history, some of them with blacks and/or veterans standing in for the townspeople.

There is a whole lot of defensive behavior that women generally take for granted and men don't seem to consider... because they don't have to.Except, of course, for how men and boys are actually far more likely to be the victims of violence and violent crime than women and girls are.

So it's not that we don't have to consider that whole lot of defensive behaviors.

It's that our communities punish us for doing so. Men who aren't as willing to risk a beating (or stabbing or shooting) let alone actually take or give one are still penalized for it in numerous ways.

In fact, women and girls in the usa enjoy a comparatively remarkable and privileged freedom from actual violence compared to what men and boys suffer.

The Black Panthers in the Sixties realized they had 2nd Amendment rights and began the political theater of open carry sometimes down to City Hall. This scared a lot of people who accused them of advocating violence while they were advocating self-defense. The Black Panthers lost the argument and Blacks have basically been denied 2nd Amendment rights in big cities up until Heller.

do you really want to get into a 2nd amendment argument here over this? as this is where it is obviously headed (or steered that way by Ms. Ann)....who has remainded strangly silent.

My personal favs here are the "hey Hondas kill more than guns" type of arguments...well if guns are so safe why is out death by gun rates 10 times higher than any "civilized" country (sic!) on the planet? We load 'em up and carry them and shoot people all day long...but that isn't the question Ann wants here is it...

This is fire in a crowded theater but removed to the second amendment and I'll wager the crux is the "ask questions later" part of the chief's statement.

. . . .well if guns are so safe why is out death by gun rates 10 times higher than any "civilized" country (sic!) on the planet?It seems you missed my earlier post, which might help explain why to you.

Again, hdhouse -- in this real world of facts and sensible priorities, wouldn't this country have been better served by you engaging in, supporting, or at the very least encouraging outreach towards men and boys at greater risk of suicide. . .instead of trying to play stupid gotcha games here?

Situations are variable Synova. Criminals may be deterred by Open Display, but they also may be deterred and driven crazy by situations where they cannot know who is armed and deterred even more effectively. 47th Street in NYC is a diamond capital. 100s of millions in diamonds are within reach of an armed gunman. Yet none dare try open armed robbery because they know that on the street and in some stores, there are scattered merchants, undercover cops, detectives, private security with concealed weapons.

The same knowledge effectively prevents one drug gang, from predating on another drug gang and steal their money and supply without expecting a shootout. Both sides, who obviously can't do open display of their 9mms, know the other side as some concealed weapons ready.

And has FBONESS said earlier, chances are that if you expect someone in a group of 20 or so might be carrying even if it is just one or two, the unarmed are protected just as much as the armed, because the thug or thugs will tend to avoid the whole group.

Its pretty simple, police forces are small, and criminals familiar with their preying grounds incline to be familiar as well with where the cops are likely to be and strike when none are near. So even if you do not want to be armed, your safety is increased commensurate with the number of armed law-abiding citizens nearby.

(Unless, sadly, those armed citizens fear police and politician retaliation if they intervene in any case but personal self-defense. Then the armed citizen has to contemplate gun confiscation, possible large legal expenses, and other disincentives if they do step to the aid of a stranger - and may just elect to walk the other way..)

"well if guns are so safe why is out death by gun rates 10 times higher than any "civilized" country (sic!) on the planet?"

Mr HdHouse, I'm not just exactly sure when you are asking questions and when they are rhetorical borborygmi, but here is the answer: if you statistically sequester 3 groups who share the same culture - white southern rednecks, urban blacks (also culturally rednecks) and southern blacks, then the rest of us do have a 'civilized' murder rate. See "White Liberals and Black Rednecks" by Sowell.

do you really want to get into a 2nd amendment argument here over this?

No, and I don't need to. You're welcome to think we don't have a right to own guns, but the Supreme Court says we do. So it is a fact of law that I do, even if you think I shouldn't, just as it is a fact of law that a conservative sheriff can't jail an abortion doctor for murder even if he thinks Roe vs. Wade was wrongly decided.

well if guns are so safe why is out death by gun rates 10 times higher than any "civilized" country (sic!) on the planet?

It isn't. Also, I didn't say guns were safe, I said cars were dangerous. A car owner is more likely to kill another person with a car than a gun owner is to kill another person with a gun. So under your logic we ought to ban cars.

We load 'em up and carry them and shoot people all day long...but that isn't the question Ann wants here is it...

Well, no, "we" don't. Half the murders in the United States are black men shooting other black men. The white murder rate isn't much higher here than it is in Canada. The United States' problems with violence stem from certain violent subcultures, not from firearms ownership by the citizenry. That's why there are countries with higher rates of firearms ownership, yet lower rates of gun homicide.

That said, open carry is rather stupid, since the bad guys can immediately recognize you as a threat.Good. I like it that way.

Letting the bad guy know you're packing allows him plenty of time to assess you as a threat, probably before you're aware of his intentions, enabling him both to plan and manoeuvre to maximize his own tactical advantageHave a plan to kill everyone you meet. That is the lesson of Iraq. Gives you a good situational awareness. People with a good SA and who are armed don't look like victims.

And the majority of murders are committed by ex-cons who shouldn't have a gun in any event. So why is a law abiding armed citizen put into the same category as a hardened criminal already intent on breaking the law via purchasing a firearm? Once you get rid of that portion of murders, and then murders done by people who know each other well, you have this tiny fraction left of stranger killings...

well if guns are so safe why is out death by gun rates 10 times higher than any "civilized" country (sic!) on the planet?Strawman...who said that guns are "so safe"? The issue is that it's legal to openly carry guns in Wisconsin but the police chief has said he'll jack people up for engaging in lawful behavior. Understand now?

Acksiom said... "...or at the very least encouraging outreach towards men and boys at greater risk of suicide. . .instead of trying to play stupid gotcha games here?"

Death by gun is the main cause of death in a fairly significant number of demographic sectors.

That isn't a "stupid gotcha game" mister. there is no rational defense for it and reliance on an interpretive and speculative reading of the 2nd amendment (for once I wish the gun loonies would look at the language of the 2nd and see how it evolved and from what and why) and then getting ready to file suit against any cop who wrestles you to the ground on your presumed innocence.

At at the fed up point of thinking that gun toting fools are a major cause of the problem. there is nothing that requires it in our society except a the need to feel like Clint Eastwood and some obsessive fears of imminent attack....why is your world so unsafe? why do you think it is?

I think that the police chief has a valid point and asking questions later may inconvenience a few of you Clint wannabees but I'd much rather keep that policeperson alive and healthy and if it is a choice between him and you, I pick him.

Hmm... so hd likes to look at total gun deaths. So, if a woman has used a gun to kill a rapist, she has become a datapoint for hd to claim guns are bad.

Just wondering, is there a way we can just hide comments posted by idiots? It's bad enough when they miss the entire issue (e.g. police harassing citizens for legal behavior) and seek to throw a thread to their own preferred topic. But when they're so ill prepared to fight on their chosen territory, it becomes tedious.

Maguro said... "The issue is that it's legal to openly carry guns in Wisconsin but the police chief has said he'll jack people up for engaging in lawful behavior. Understand now?"

I do and seemingly you don't. You have a legally carried gun. You have it out in the open. You touch it in public...just that reassuring pat, like when you probably touch yourself just to make sure that "its still thar"...and our policeman wanders up at the same time, or a kid sees it and screams, or someone just gets crazy and thinks its a challenge..what then? How is the policeman to react then?

Carrying a gun in public, exposed, is simply selfish. it sucks the safety right out of the public air just so someone can feel more manly man (my gun's bigger than your gun). To feel "safe" you endanger the rest of us, not the least of whom is that poor cop on the beat who has to decide in a split second if you are reassuring yourself or getting ready to draw.

If you will simply admit it is a stupid law that needs visiting I'll let you go. If you can't figure that much out, then heaven help ya' I don't wanta know ya'.

Just wondering, is there a way we can just hide comments posted by idiots?Dante created a circle of hell for them where they are buffeted by great winds of flatuence, but there's no way to hide their comments.

Strangely enough our death by gun rates are not 10 times higher than any other “civilized” country. When I read that I cringed because I just “know” that the author is otherwise so politically correct and multicultural that he pees sitting down.

The death buy gun rates are of course a function of many things including racial strife (South Africa has a death by gun rate 7 times that of the US), the criminal justice system (Columbia has a death rate 5 times the US rate), and the accessibility of guns. I believe –check this to see if I am correct – the killing fields so Cambodia were filled with people killed by hand instruments like hoes. Murder by bullet was considered to have a detrimental psychological effect on the German executioners during the Third Reich so gas changers were substituted. I believe machetes were the tool of choice in Rwanda.

So, HD, if you have an issue with the law that allows for open carry, I'm OK with that. I'd even spend an extended amount of time to debate the issue with you. Tell me, have you personally taken any steps to have that law repealed? Called your local representative?You can't possibly accept an illegal action (take 'em down!) to counter a legal action that makes you, shall we say, uncomfortable. Could you? If so, are there other areas of your state's statutes (let alone other constitutionally protected rights)that you feel similarly?

Because just saying so without presenting some kind of objective line of reasoning for other people to consider is. . .well, mere vanity posting, and on a level of discussion level more suited to the playground. Argumentatively, y'know, it's about as valid -- and persuasive -- as accusing open carriers of having gun cooties.

I think that the police chief has a valid point and asking questions later may inconvenience a few of you Clint wannabees but I'd much rather keep that policeperson alive and healthy and if it is a choice between him and you, I pick him.

The funny thing about HD's position, there, is that it only makes sense if the rest of his argument is bunk.

If people who openly carry guns are, in fact, the deadly threat to safety that he claims they are, ordering the police to start some shit with said carriers would obviously make those policemen a good deal LESS safe. Accosting gun carriers is only a safe activity for cops if you accept the truth that HD has, thus far, been denying -- that the people in question are law-abiding citizens that don't pose a threat.

I have a carry permit. I carry a gun often. I've got a nice little S&W titanium frame revolver for summer, and a Glock 19 for winter. Happy? Or do I need to spam more detail?

Look, if a person with a gun is near you, you notice. That weapon can kill you. The only environment I've every been in where weapons were normal was the armed forces. Don't expect people to take open carry as a completely normal thing when it's not. Carrying a weapon openly is a threat of possible violence. That's why cops and soldiers carry them openly as a badge of authority.

People deserve to be free of that threat. A uniform makes it OK because it's a public trust. I'm just some random guy on the street.

house,you continually show the world what a total fool you are. There is no such thing as death by guns. Guns, like your brain, are inanimate objects. They can do no harm, in and of themselves.

There is only death by people. People kill people; with guns, knives, cars, fists, feet, bats, clubs, pipes, poison, drowning, and even musical instruments.

People kill people, not inanimate objects. Oh, and before you blather on in your insanity and nut job lunacy- remember I was a cop for almost thrity years. I did forensic investigations for fourteen years. I never saw or heard of a gun, all by its inanimate self, kill someone. Just like al the other weapons mentioned. They did not kill anyone either. People kill people, objects do not kill people. WHat experience do you have in this field.

The fucking silence is deafening.

Now, get off the drugs, get off the booze, and take care of your poor starving cats; or I will call the ASPCA.

I'm seeing a gap between a notional world where we're all armed citizens ready to confront criminals and the real world where a family of four at the park might be freaked out by a guy with a gun sitting next to a tree by the swingset.

You have to go by social norms, not by a utopic vision of the world. Carrying a gun in real life isn't a political protest, it's for a real purpose. The purpose is to protect yourself, not to intimidate people around you.

Skyler said..."I think hd is projecting his own irrational fears onto other children."

I've often wondered what it is about guns that paralyzes so many people. I grew up around / with guns. They were and are respected for all they can do. They were never considered toys. They still aren't. There are two things that make me uncomfortable about guns: 1) a gun pointed at me, & 2) a misfire / jam (clearly, one more than the other). But still, I wonder. How many people who abhor guns (of all types) have ever seen one 1st hand? How many have held a gun? Been to a range? Actually fired a gun? How many even know someone who owns a gun?

I just get the sense that, for too many people, there is an irrational fear of guns.

Look, if a person with a gun is near you, you notice.Except, of course, for when people don't notice -- which is what open carriers reliably report.

That weapon can kill you.So can a combination of bleach and ammonia, but people don't get freaked out when those are both in someone's cart next to them in the checkout line.

The only environment I've every been in where weapons were normal was the armed forces.And the only conditions under which other adult Citizens are at all responsible for your emotional state are those to which they have previously agreed.

Don't expect people to take open carry as a completely normal thing when it's not.And, likewise, don't expect open carriers to shoulder any responsibility for the emotional states of other people.

Carrying a weapon openly is a threat of possible violence.And everyday life is filled with threats of possible violence, from food on a stick to bicycling in normal car traffic and beyond.

That's why cops and soldiers carry them openly as a badge of authority.And why Citizens carry them openly as a means of self-defense -- which is, BTW, a far more fundamental human right than "not having to see something subjectively upsetting" and variations thereof.

People deserve to be free of that threat.And since nobody is arguing, let alone actually trying, to take away or diminish their right and ability to perceptually discriminate between upstanding openly armed fellow Citizens (who will, furthermore, most likely defend them in case of trouble), and criminals who intend to harm them, people are absolutely entitled to do so, and thereby control their own emotional states, including whether or not they feel "threatened."

What nobody gets to do is make openly carrying Citizens at all responsible for the emotional states of other people -- as your argument necessarily attempts to do by fiat.

A uniform makes it OK because it's a public trust.And individual adult responsibility for one's own emotional state makes it OK in the absence of a uniform because we're not by-default responsible for the emotional states of other adults.

I'm just some random guy on the street.And as such, you're not at all responsible for the emotional state of another random adult on the street.

It can be said of a plane, a boat or a bike too. May I remind you that in 2001 nearly 5 times the number of Americans who were lost on 9/11 died of homicide so in your pristine world of facts and hopeful figures wouldn't this country have been better served by a war on guns rather than terrorists?

Of course not so don't get all snitty here but people with guns are a much larger threat to me than a terrorist is and those are just the facts.Alcohol, consumed by humans, is a bigger "threat" to you.

Milwaukee Police chief Ed Flynn is a good guy, and a helluva police chief. He has changed how police in Milwaukee treat crime and criminals, using the methods that had strong. positive results in NYC a few years back.

Flynn has also, for the first time in decades, stood up in defense of his officers when 'community organizers' held protests.

The problem that he has is that parts of Milwaukee are still gang-dominated, with a lot of shootings. Flynn doesn't want the bad guys carrying guns, period.

He's a lot less concerned about citizens in other areas of the city carrying guns, or lawful citizens in the inner city carrying guns. But he has to say what he said out of concern that some group will scream about discrimination if he says perps and perp wannabees shouldn't have guns.

There was a case in San Jose where a gun fell off a closet shelf, fired, the bullet struck the occupant of the house and she died. Since it wasn't during an earthquake, clearly there was some human or animal interaction required to make the pistol fall, but there was no finger on the trigger.

Newer pistols have interlocks, well, mine do, which prevent that.

My army colonel brother called his old 6 shooter a 5 shooter - never kept a round under the hammer. Smart.

. You have a legally carried gun. You have it out in the open. You touch it in public...just that reassuring pat, like when you probably touch yourself just to make sure that "its still thar

OMG this is so funny. Garage has a penis fixation on guns. Touch it in public. Oooooh rub that gun.. ooooohh pat that thing.

Guns are functional in the same way that a car is or any other power tool. Unless you ARE a criminal....guns have a function. Hunting. Protection. DETERRANCE.

I personally own a Mossberg 500 Persuader (kept at home) and other guns for hunting purposes and have a CC permit.

hdhouse can be a politcally correct weenie all he wants. I'm looking out for my bottom line

I think of my guns the same way I thing about my pots, pan, blender, mixer, car....funtional tools, however some will keep me safer than others. You try throwing a Kitchen Aid mixer at a criminal wanting to do mayhem....OR... use the Persuader.

That isn't a "stupid gotcha game" mister. there is no rational defense for it and reliance on an interpretive and speculative reading of the 2nd amendment (for once I wish the gun loonies would look at the language of the 2nd and see how it evolved and from what and why) and then getting ready to file suit against any cop who wrestles you to the ground on your presumed innocence.It would be quite interesting to see your sources here.

The real problem under the 2nd Amdt. is not really that the cops wrestle you to the ground despite the presumption of innocence, but rather, that state action is being utilized to deprive someone of a fundamental right. The typical standard for depriving someone of a fundamental right is strict scrutiny, and it is highly likely that the police department's actions would fail that standard.

Of course, that presupposes incorporation by the 14th Amdt., but that is probably more likely after Heller, than before.

hdhouse' ideas are of course not 'illegal'. He can think anything he wants (and apparently does, not being bound by reality).

The ideas are, nevertheless corrupt and in furtherance of unconstitutional behavior on the part of state actors. Those are not endearing charms. They are, in fact, dangerous to his own safety as it leads one to assume that the world is replete with pink clouds and smiling cherubs.

At at the fed up point of thinking that gun toting fools are a major cause of the problem. there is nothing that requires it in our society except a the need to feel like Clint Eastwood and some obsessive fears of imminent attack....why is your world so unsafe? why do you think it is?I am not sure what problem you are referring to. Crime? I have seen no reputable studies that openly carrying weapons increased crime, and there is some evidence that providing legal concealed carry reduces crime.

Of course, if you have reputable studies (please cite the studies themselves, and not commentary about them) that show that open carry increases crime, then please provide it for us.

I was just wondering how many of the "gun rights" arguments would fly out of the closet and sure enough, there they all are in their insufferable splender.

Dust Bunny Queen's was perhaps the funniest...venturing to guess that her "persuader" is just about as lethal as any one of her frying pans....remember guns are just inanimate objects..its people who kill people, guns are just there for the ride...much like a frying pan.

Any of the rest of the Bill of Right s you find funny?I know the left is fond of the living Constitution, so I would guess it's really a Bill of Possible Suggestions Until the Smart Liberals Take Over and Really Tell Us What to Do.

Pogo....oh you misunderstand me my friend. I love the constitution. What bothers me is akin to those who look at a tree and see the image of the Virgin Mary in it and want to stop it from growing any further least they disturb the image that may not be shared.

house,You, insufferable poltroon, there is no argument. There is a Second Amendment. Just like there is a First Amendment.

If you read history, maybe the writings of those who actually wrote the Constitution, you would know, not realize, but know, that the Second Amendment was put in place to protect the First Amendment. But, alas, you only read Shakespeare.

Unfortunately, the Second Amendment is the only one regulated by government.

"I love the constitution. What bothers me is akin to those who look at a tree and see the image of the Virgin Mary in it and want to stop it from growing any further least they disturb the image that may not be shared."The Constitution doesn't grow. It is amended. It does not change because one wants it to be something it is not.

If one wants it to be something different, there's a process for that.

Carrying a weapon is NOT a badge of authority. It is a tool.Well, I have lots of tools in my basement. Hammers, a big ol' pipe wrench, you name it. Why carry them around? Similarly, in a safe urban setting, why carry a gun around? It's not like you'll have to use it.

I don't understand the need to carry a gun around. For example, why were the people in Texas where Freeman's husband was all carrying guns? Are they all shooting varmints in their off time? It mystifies me. I understand there's a The Government would like to take this right away from me so I'm going to carry openly just because I can mindset, but that is IMO an irrational fear. Because I can is not a great excuse to do something.

I do wish I had a particular gun, though. My Dad's ancient cousin (she tells great stories of the Spanish Flu pandemic!) who lives downtown had a sweet little blue steel Colt that her Uncle gave her to keep in the glove box of her car when she lived in rural South Carolina back in the '40s. She gave it to a nephew, alas, who collects.

Drive-by shootings. Hot robberies (break-ins with you still in the house) and repeated rapes inside the home have hit my town. People attacked, robbed, and beaten walking a few blocks home from working downtown. Robberies of hotel guests in the hotel hallways.

Well for me its situational. I'll carry one depending if I know I'm working late downtown and have to amble back to the parking garage in the dark. Then again I don't carry one when I'm going to Wal-Mart in my town. I always pack in the car when going on road trips but not when I'm going to the store.

I look at it like I do my earthquake provision in my homeowner's policy. Hope I won't need it and statistically, probably won't ever have to use it but it's nice to know its there.

I find it interesting that the folks like hdhouse who for 8 years bemoaned that we were living under a police state and got chills walking past Ashcroft's Justice Department are perfectly comfortable with that same government having sole access to all the guns.

Seriously, it's time for you to wave the white flag on this issue. The "wingnuts" to whom you feel so superior have dismembered your arguments so completely that you've been reduced to the "hit a nerve, have I?" canard. You lost. Big time.

not so. all i've gotten is a rehash of the same worn tribble that has populated the pro-gun legions for decades. there is nothing new here and just saying the same claptrap over and over does NOT a WINNING ARGUMENT make.

Or in my case the county mounties (sherrif dept) will be around in no less than 30 minutes to an hour or so. There are no local patrols and the substation is 40 miles away and the dispatchers for our area are over 80 miles away and completely unfamiliar with our area.

hdhouse thinks it's funny to be prepared and armed. I think it's prudent and the responsible thing to do.

hdhouse also sounds like some Victorian woman with the vapors at the sight of a gun.

people with guns are a much larger threat to me than a terrorist is and those are just the facts.The vast majority of people with guns have no interest in killing me, and thus are no threat (unless I were to suddenly morph into Bambi). Can you say the same of terrorists?

1) "Funny, we're saying the same thing about the dribble you're spouting."

Can we get it right please? Now and forevermore what you mean is DRIVEL not DRIBBLE.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/drivel

drivel2 entries found.

1. 1drivel (intransitive verb) 2. 2drivel (noun)

Main Entry: 1driv·el Listen to the pronunciation of 1drivelPronunciation: \ˈdri-vəl\ Function: intransitive verb Inflected Form(s): driv·eled or driv·elled; driv·el·ing or driv·el·ling Listen to the pronunciation of drivelling \-v(ə-)liŋ\ Etymology: Middle English, from Old English dreflian; perhaps akin to Old Norse draf malt dregsDate: before 12th century

2) hdhouse, why do you care so much? I think we can safely skip past the part where your heart is broken by senseless tragedy. You're not that type.

Given your history of personalization of the argument, ISTM that we should assume you're either:

a) a totalitarian or tot-symp who wants an unarmed populace unable to resist every creepy bureaucrat who wants to make my daughter shake her tits in junior high school,

and/or

b) a home invader scared of being rightfully shot in the commission of a crime.

What do you care if one gangbanger shoots another?

What do you care if someone commits suicide by gun instead of pill?

What do you care, except to cheer, when someone defends him or herself with a firearm?

Given all the harms you will allow in the name of people's personal freedoms to do scummy things not explicitly proscribed by the Constitution, why are you so frantically eager to deny the people an explicitly endorsed and essential right that the Constitution already admits that we have?

"The only environment I've every been in where weapons were normal was the armed forces. Don't expect people to take open carry as a completely normal thing when it's not. Carrying a weapon openly is a threat of possible violence. That's why cops and soldiers carry them openly as a badge of authority."

I beg to differ.

Although, if cops and soldiers carry weapons openly as a badge of authority I would argue that is surely proof that citizens must also be allowed to carry weapons openly. This is *not* a police state.

But I disagree with the premise altogether. Cops wear a badge (as military does not) as a "badge of authority." A *badge*. We presume that the gun they carry is a necessary tool and carrying it concealed is just silly.

Now, the *military* on state-side bases simply don't "carry", unless those military are MP's or SP's (police) and are on specific guard duty *or* are training. I find it hard to envision "the only place I've been" where weapons are carried openly is military, because I would expect the opposite to be true. I would expect that not even Marines state-side go about day-to-day, armed.

Deployed is a different story. But in that case carrying a weapon is also not a badge of authority, but a necessary contingency in case of attack.

"Pogo....oh you misunderstand me my friend. I love the constitution. What bothers me is akin to those who look at a tree and see the image of the Virgin Mary in it and want to stop it from growing any further least they disturb the image that may not be shared."

Egad.

If the image of the Virgin Mary is important, then if the "tree" is allowed to "grow" what is important will be lost.

If the Constitution represents nothing important as it is, and ought to be allowed to "grow" and change... then there is no purpose to it that could not be accomplished through the passage of normal laws that change as majority opinion changes. Many countries get along fine without a Constitution at all. They enact whatever laws they all agree upon and so far so good.

Our Constitution is important *because* we insist on applying it contrary to majority opinion. It is well worth enforcing the bits that are annoying and doing so as strictly as possible to keep the parts we *like* as strong as possible. We soften the 2nd amendment and we soften the 1st. We soften the protections in the 1st amendment related to religion or soften free speech protection and we soften all the rest of it.

The tree "grows" and the Virgin Mary morphs into some other thing, the other designs depicting freedom of speech, equal protection, *all* of it morphs if the tree grows.

There are provisions in place to change the constitution. They are difficult on purpose. That *purpose* is important and subverting it with notions that changes can be eased in without going through the amendment process devalues the constitution into just another document with no power and no ability to protect individual rights against the will of the majority.

Oh but the constitution does change over time. It is unstoppable and relentless. We appoint a mixture of justices who timeslice through it, some frozen way back when and others who see it as a living document, a Talmud of sorts for the republic.

The issue in the civics lecture seemed to rest on some sort of benchmark or ruler that only barely changes and only through process. Fortunately there are those who disagree and pull in the other direction.

Some of us point to the court's makeup and note that it would be impossible for a judge to simply ignore what he has learned and observed in the world and treat the constitution exactly as first sitting court would treat it. They change it, albeit slightly, just by the nature of their experience v. prior judges with their experience.

There are two ends to this piece of string and, if you are true Americans, open to discussion, you will discuss - otherwise you just lecture.

Nichevo:

I care because of the rampant violence in this country. Don't you care? If not, why not?

Hoosier....glad you caught the Tribble reference...which is appropos...soft and fuzzy guns, serving no purpose other than to reproduce and clog up society like the did the air vents on the Enterprise. It was meant. It was purposeful.

Hoo-Daddy, I just spoke up because I see this all the damn time on teh intarwebz. Ppl r so illiterut I can't stand it. If it is a conscious thing on your part I shall say no more.

hdhouse, you have to be more specific. I don't think your apparent agenda would solve the problem, and I don't think you would countenance measures that would. (How did you like Giuliani? I thought so.)

You might as well ban "bad" weather. Nobody lives forever, which really seems to be the unacknowledged aim of some.

Besides, if violence was so rampant, I would feel better having a gun. The fact that I do not is because I don't feel the need for one outweighs the burdens placed on me by my residence. What rampant violence? I look out my window and don't see any.

IOW I feel pretty safe overall, and my liking for punching holes in paper isn't worth the hundreds or thousands of dollars and months of time in compliance costs. You talking up the violence just makes me think it might be worth it after all.

That is the Rush Limbaugh school of observation...hey the earth looks flat to me!..ergo...

I would bring up the number of innocents killed by gunfire each year but you would say "guns don't kill people, people kill people" (huh huh huh pull my finger!)

Then earlier you said "I don't think your apparent agenda would solve the problem, and I don't think you would countenance measures that would."

What is the problem to be solved? I think it has to do with carrying a weapon in public (not brandishing it as was observed early) and the general effect that has on the populace... I could ask that if everyone had a gun and it was mandatory to carry one would you feel better then?

Last, the vast majority of police chiefs etc. seem to be against "gun, gun, everywhere a gun gun" as it makes their job unsafe. How does your purported "right" (as you think it is) give you the right to make someone else feel unsafe? Have you truly studied the 2nd amendment or have you just read what the NRA wants you to?

"Last, the vast majority of police chiefs etc. seem to be against 'gun, gun, everywhere a gun gun' as it makes their job unsafe."

Oh nonsense! I wouldn't begin to claim that the majority of police chiefs are anti-gun-rights, but clearly those that are are political appointees of little statists and are pathetically confused about the proper relationship between the government and the citizens here in America.

That is the Rush Limbaugh school of observation...hey the earth looks flat to me!..ergo...

It worked for Socrates before him. (I don't recall whether Socrates believed the world was flat.)

Curiously, the evidence of one's own eyes sometimes tracks well with statistical reality. For instance, crime in my neighborhood USED to be fairly "rampant," now it is not.

I would bring up the number of innocents killed by gunfire each year but you would say "guns don't kill people, people kill people" (huh huh huh pull my finger!)

Well, first I asked you to tighten up on your definitions - who is significantly "innocent" in your reckoning. Most people who are shot are not "innocent."

Then earlier you said " I don't think your apparent agenda would solve the problem, and I don't think you would countenance measures that would."

What is the problem to be solved?

Gee, I don't know, ... something to do with VIOLENCE? What do YOU think the problem is?

I think it has to do with carrying a weapon in public (not brandishing it as was observed early) and the general effect that has on the populace...

So this is the "problem" we're trying to solve? I have extremely high confidence that crime related to open carry is extremely low.

I could ask that if everyone had a gun and it was mandatory to carry one would you feel better then?

Better how? Safer? Freer? Must everyone who believes in population control have a vasectomy? How ridiculous this is.

But you'll think I'm dodging the question, so: on balance, probably, yes. I'm not TOO afraid of being shot over a parking space. But then I'm not perpetually angry like some posters here seem to be.

Last, the vast majority of police chiefs etc. seem to be against "gun, gun, everywhere a gun gun" as it makes their job unsafe.

Doesn't make their jobs unsafe. (When was the last time a police chief was ever shot?) Might make them unsafe as in, a well-armed society might have lower crime rates meaning a need for fewer police, thus layoffs. Is that what you mean by "safe jobs?" Safe, like an undertaker's job is safe?

I am less concerned with a cop's safety than with my safety.

How does your purported "right" (as you think it is)

Please read the Constitution.

give you the right to make someone else feel unsafe? Have you truly studied the 2nd amendment or have you just read what the NRA wants you to?

1:18 PM

The 2nd Amendment says nothing whatsoever about feelings. Insofar as that goes, I would say that a good man armed would make me feel safer, a bad man armed would make me feel endangered, and a stranger armed would make me curious and alert.

If it were usual to carry openly, I think the fear factor would diminish. You might as well legislate based on the fear of piercings or tattoos. Now those people are scary.

It happens that I am not in love with the notion of open carry, but I would regard it more as a question of taste. I don't think you should be arrested for showing a flash of a holstered gunbutt as you lean over to tie your shoe.

well if guns are so safe why is out death by gun rates 10 times higher than any "civilized" country (sic!) on the planet?One must recall that the United States is continental in scale. At just shy of 10 million square kilometers (slighly less than 4 million sq. mi.), the U.S. encompasses more than twice the physical size of the now 27-nation European Union, along with possessing three-fifths of its population — composed as this country is of fifty states, inhabited by more than 300 million people, with diverse populations residing within those states.

Europeans often think of America as just another country, like one of the constituent nations within the E.U. — whereas in actuality the United States is really another multi-nation state like the E.U. itself — but with a two-century head start (not to speak of having a much more tersely and sensibly written constitution).

Given this, it ought to be clear that the so-called “gun problem” in America must vary dramatically from state to state — as well as from place to place, and from people to people, within those states.

With that in mind, let's take a look at states of the U.S.'s gun-murder rates. Homicides in general across the U.S. states vis-a-vis specifically gun-caused homicide rates may be examined here (a table in Wikipedia).

Notice therein that the state of Louisiana exhibits by far the highest not only overall homicide rate but gun homicide rate (10.13 gun homicide deaths per 100,000 population, versus 12.74 overall homicides per 100,000, producing a gun homicide to homicide ratio of 79.5%) — whose gun homicide rate is almost half again higher than that of Maryland, which presents the second highest gun homicide rate (of 6.95 vs. 9.37, or 74.2%).

Maryland in turn similarly displays almost half again the gun-murder rate of fourth-ranking California (with 4.82 vs. 6.67, or 72.2%). Mississippi comes in third (5.55 vs. 7.83, or 70.9%).

Note that Louisiana's gun-murder rate is more than twenty-three times that seen in New Hampshire (0.43 vs. 1.39, or 30.8%), which state comes at the bottom in the American gun-murder sweepstakes.

Notice too that in gun-friendly New Hampshire (lowest in overall homicides) — where virtually any (non felon) resident has the right to walk around with a gun on their person, concealed or no — gun homicides make up less than a third of all the murders. Compare that datum with Louisiana, where gun homicides constitute nearly four-fifths of all murders (in Maryland the figure is almost three-quarters).

One can see therefore that Louisiana, and to lesser extent Maryland, are relative outliers in America, though they're perhaps not entirely unrepresentative. Third-ranking Mississippi's gun homicide rate of 5.55 or fourth-ranked California with 4.82 are a great deal less than Louisiana's 10.13 — but, of course, that's still a lot more than, say, New Hampshire's rate of 0.43.

I know some of you were wishing I was done… but let's delve a bit now within those states. This site at the U.S. Department of Justice allows perusing more detailed homicide data on a state-by-state (along with other criteria) basis. Plunk in “Louisiana” or “Maryland,” say, the year “2004” (so one can know the results have nothing to do with hurricane Katrina and its aftermath in La.) — and “Age Group,” “Race and Gender Group,” along with “Weapons Type” for the criteria — then click on “Get Table.”

For the year 2004, as a result, looking at data by “Age,” one finds that Louisiana suffered homicides (ignoring rates for children and older folks) in the following proportions:

Louisiana age-related homicide rates:03.1% Age 14-1733.9% Age 18-2430.7% Age 25-3417.6% Age 35-49

One can see that 64.6% (nearly two thirds) of the homicide victims in Louisiana (during the year 2004) fell in the age range 18-34 — while an additional sixth lay within age range 35-49. Children under 18, and older folk age 50 and above, are thus somewhat seldom victims of homicide in Louisiana. Figures for other of the top homicide-rate states aren't all that different.

Returning to that same DOJ site but looking now at the breakdown by “Race and Gender,” one finds the following results for homicides in Louisiana:

Additionally, from the U.S. Census one can determine the black/white racial proportion in the various states. For instance, Louisiana's black/white proportion is 31.9% vs. 65.1%.

Thus, though white males and white females as well as black females all experienced roughly the same 7-12% risk of being victims of homicide in Louisiana (as of 2004; please feel free to check other years at the given link), African-American males (of predominantly the 18-34 age range) can be seen to be overwhelmingly more likely to be murdered in Louisiana: more than two-thirds of recorded homicides in the state target them — despite blacks making up less than a third of the population in the state, and males within the group constituting only about half of that.

Checking similar items in second-ranking Maryland (I'll spare you the details), the disparity here is even greater, as almost 72% (almost three quarters) of the state's homicides target African-American males, despite blacks making up only about 30% of the population (and males only half of that).

The story in third-ranking Mississippi is somewhat similar, although the age range for most homicides is displaced upwards. While white males are being murdered there at a rate of about twice that of the two front-ranking states discussed above, nonetheless African-American males still suffer a homicide rate there of almost 55%, despite blacks constituting only 37% of that state's population (and males in particular only half of that).

California, as the fourth ranking (and not a Southern) state, is an especially interesting case, as blacks there make up less than 7% of the state's overall population (males half of that), yet African-American men still constitute almost 30% of all those being murdered, whereas white males (with whites making up nearly 77% of the populace) are being bumped off at just short of 50% rate.

Moreover, California (by far the nation's most populous state — nearly one in eight Americans is a Californian) has a sizable Hispanic population (together with a considerable Hispanic gang problem), which likely greatly influences the state's homicide rates — so it seems to me that the prominence of black males in California's homicide statistics is, perhaps, all the more surprising here.

At this historical point in time it appears most unlikely that young African-American men are being lynched — in pogroms instigated by white racists — in vast numbers across many states of the Union (certainly not without an immense hoorah being raised within the media — which is not occurring). Therefore, a vastly more probable conclusion is that young black males in Louisiana (and many other states) are murdering other young black men — and with an almost 80% probability in La. (more than 70% in other states), utilizing a gun to do the job.

Now, for comparison, look up the corresponding items for the lower-ranking states (in the Wikipedia table pointed to above) — states like Hawaii, Vermont, and New Hampshire, located at the bottom of the homicide rankings list — which undergo gun murder rates between about twenty and twenty-three times lower than rates exhibited in Louisiana.

Note that I do not imply at all that I think this phenomenon is due to anything inherent in the black vs. white psyche (I don't think that), but rather I interpret this phenomenon as an exhibition of cultural differences between diverse populations within the various states of the Union.

This becomes particularly apparent when one notices that there are other states of the U.S. containing sizable African-American populations whose homicide rates do not reflect (nearly as much) trends exhibited by the leading states. As a consequence one can say that it's not blacks in general who are doing the killing, but particular gangland-style subcultures inside (mostly) African-American groups whose rate of murdering their rivals within that cultural milieu (if one wants to grant it such a distinction) must be truly extreme. Groups of people, including African-Americans, who are not members or associated with such high-killing-rate groups will exhibit enormously lower murder rates — including with guns.